Black Lives Matter shouts down ACLU: 'You protect Hitler, too!'

A celebration of free speech at William & Mary College in Virginia took an unexpected turn last week when protesters from Black Lives Matter swarmed the stage and forced organizers to end the event.

“Liberalism is white supremacy!” the protesters shouted, and “ACLU, you protect Hitler too!”

The disruption occurred before Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, could give a planned speech on freedom of expression.

The protesters livestreamed the demonstration on Facebook and were heard shouting other slogans, including, "The oppressed are not impressed!,” “Blood on your hands!,” and “The revolution will not uphold the Constitution!”

They've been really good about protecting free speech. Now they're going to start taking a closer look at what speech they choose to fight to protect.

* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

* No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.

They've done more than that for churches that were having their rights taken away by local communities.

I don't know anything about their structure, but isn't it possible while their local chapters are generally good, their higher-ups set the agenda what "hills they'll die for" so to speak? Vice Versa too. I don't study the ACLU, and I've never worked with them, but everybody's got political preferences...

So BLM is effectively working to legitimize the forceful oppression of BLM rants and protests.

"Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

The ACLU has long been a pain in the government's ass. Of course a 'covert asset' like BLM will topple it if it can.

Liberals will wake up to the true nature of BLM or they won't. Meanwhile, we can only hope this particular attack backfires on them by means of their own divide and conquer tactics. Conservatives could get over their longstanding, mostly irrational mistrust of the ACLU if the liberals turn against it.

I don't know anything about their structure, but isn't it possible while their local chapters are generally good, their higher-ups set the agenda what "hills they'll die for" so to speak? Vice Versa too. I don't study the ACLU, and I've never worked with them, but everybody's got political preferences...

Ronald Reagan put Michael Dukakis in a box when he said Dukakis is a liberal and "a card-carrying member of the ACLU." That was a very polarizing point in the campaign, because most people think the ACLU mainly fights for liberal causes.

"There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought."~~Charles Kingsley

Ronald Reagan put Michael Dukakis in a box when he said Dukakis is a liberal and "a card-carrying member of the ACLU." That was a very polarizing point in the campaign, because most people think the ACLU mainly fights for liberal causes.

Which they do when it comes to issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution or civil rights (ie Planned Parenthood funding, Nativity Scenes, etc.).

My experience with the ACLU has always been positive. They have been very supportive of religious orgs and their rights.

Originally Posted by angelatc

They've been really good about protecting free speech. Now they're going to start taking a closer look at what speech they choose to fight to protect.

Originally Posted by acptulsa

Each other?

The ACLU has long been a pain in the government's ass. Of course a 'covert asset' like BLM will topple it if it can.

Liberals will wake up to the true nature of BLM or they won't. Meanwhile, we can only hope this particular attack backfires on them by means of their own divide and conquer tactics. Conservatives could get over their longstanding, mostly irrational mistrust of the ACLU if the liberals turn against it.

Originally Posted by euphemia

Ronald Reagan put Michael Dukakis in a box when he said Dukakis is a liberal and "a card-carrying member of the ACLU." That was a very polarizing point in the campaign, because most people think the ACLU mainly fights for liberal causes.

Irony is defined as "the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning." The term doublespeak means "evasive, ambiguous language that is intended to deceive or confuse."
There is perhaps no greater example of ironic doublespeak than inclusion of the phrase "civil liberties" within the inapt designation: "American Civil Liberties Union."
Indeed, few leftist organizations in existence today can compete with the ACLU in terms of demonstrated hostility toward what the Declaration of Independence describes as "certain unalienable rights" with which Americans are "endowed by their Creator."
Consider the doublespeak inherent throughout the "progressive" Goliath's flowery self-representation:
The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.
Now contrast that depiction with ACLU founder Roger Baldwin's candid vision:
I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
Ironic, isn't it? So much for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." By combining straightforward segments from each ACLU rendering we arrive with an accurate portrayal. One that cuts through the doublespeak:
The ACLU is...working daily in courts, legislatures and communities. Communism is the goal.

The group fights tooth and nail for abortion rights, for example, despite the lack of any clearly stated right to abortion in the Constitution, because the Democratic Party and the left in general are pro-abortion. They refuse to support gun rights, even though a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms is clearly spelled out in the Second Amendment, because Democrats and liberals opposed gun rights.

They bring lawsuits to force state governments to give bigger welfare checks to the prolific poor. They call on the federal government to regulate the compensation businesses pay their employees.
When malcontent feminists tried to force a privately owned country club to change its admission policies through public protests, media campaigns, and punitive lawsuits targeted at the club’s members, a truly non-partisan civil rights group would have defended the club’s right of association. The ACLU apparently values political correctness over Constitutional rights; they joined the feminists in trying to pressure the club to change its policies.

Even the ACLU's own promotional materials overtly advocate religious discrimination: "The message of the Establishment Clause is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion."

Utter hokum.
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause -- a mere 10 words -- says nothing of the sort. Its message is abundantly clear, requiring severe distortion to stuff within the ACLU's Marxist parameters. It merely states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That's it.
Now let's break it down. What do you suppose the Framers of the US Constitution -- a document expressly designed to limit the powers of federal government -- intended with the word "Congress"? Did they mean State government? Municipal government? Your local school district? Your third grade teacher?
Of course not. They meant exactly what they said: Congress. As in: The United States Congress! It takes someone with a distinctly disingenuous ulterior motive to derive anything else.
Now what did they mean by "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?"
Well, in a letter to Benjamin Rush, a fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson -- often touted by the left as the great church-state separationst -- answered that question. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause was singularly intended to restrict Congress from affirmatively "establishing," through federal legislation, a national Christian denomination (similar to the Anglican Church of England).

Or, as Jefferson put it: "[T]he clause of the Constitution" covering "freedom of religion" was intended to necessarily preclude "an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States."
How far removed we are today from the original intent of our Founding Fathers. The ACLU is largely responsible for creating the gulf between the Constitution's original construction and its modern misapplication.
The ACLU remains one of America's most powerful secular-socialist political pressure groups. It relentlessly tramples underfoot the First Amendment, which guarantees sweeping and absolute liberty for all Americans -- including government employees -- to freely exercise their faith both publicly and privately without fear of reprisal: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Examples of its constitutional abuses are manifold, but one of the most recent involves an ACLU assault against a group of Christians in Santa Rosa County, FL.

Liberty Counsel represents those Christians. An ACLU-crafted Consent Decree has been used as a weapon to threaten school district employees with fines and jail time for merely praying over a meal, and for exercising -- even while away from school -- their sincerely held Christian faith. You read that right. The ACLU is literally seeking to criminalize Christianity.
In August of 2009, Liberty Counsel successfully defended staff member Michelle Winkler from contempt charges brought by the ACLU after her husband, who is not even employed by the district, offered a meal prayer at a privately sponsored event in a neighboring county.
Liberty Counsel also successfully defended Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman against criminal contempt charges, after the ACLU sought to have the men thrown in jail for blessing a lunch meal served to about 20 adult booster club members.
Under the Consent Decree teachers are considered to be acting in their "official capacity" anytime a student is present, even at private functions off campus.
Liberty Counsel describes this unconstitutional decree: Teachers cannot pray, bow their heads, or fold their hands to show agreement with anyone who does pray. Teachers and staff cannot 'Reply' to an email sent by a parent if the parent's email refers to God or Scripture. Teachers either have to delete such references from the original email or reply by initiating a new email. Teachers and staff are also required to stop students from praying in their own private club meetings.
During witness testimony, Mrs. Winkler sobbed as she described how she and a coworker, who had recently lost a child, literally had to hide in a closet to pray.
Although the case continues, on Monday the ACLU suffered a tremendous setback while freedom took a significant step forward. Federal District Court Judge M. Casey Rodgers granted in part a Preliminary Injunction in favor of Liberty Counsel's twenty-four Christian clients.
Judge Rodgers concluded that even though "a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy," one aspect of the Consent Decree -- its attempt to prohibit school employees from fully participating in private religious events -- is so flawed that it must be immediately halted.
The Court thus enjoined the School Board "from enforcing any school policy that restrains in any way an employee's participation in, or speech or conduct during, a private religious service, including baccalaureate" pending a trial on the merits.

Ronald Reagan put Michael Dukakis in a box when he said Dukakis is a liberal and "a card-carrying member of the ACLU." That was a very polarizing point in the campaign, because most people think the ACLU mainly fights for liberal causes.

Not surprising. Black Lives Matter is black supremacist organization that is fundamentally opposed to freedom on every level.http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/04/black-lives-matter-students-shut-down-th r Here are few other quotes from their chant.

"the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, uh, "liberalism is white supremacy."

The ACLU is fundamentally awful too. They don't defend the First Amendment. They support anti-discrimination laws and are on other side of the lawsuit against the Colorado baker. They are staunchly against school choice. They were against Hobby Lobby in that Supreme Court case.

I don't need personal experience, their record is clear, a few anomalous exceptions are to be expected in any organization but the ACLU is a dedicated communist organization intent on destroying Christianity and the Constitution.

Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Robert Heinlein

Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

Groucho Marx

I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

Linus, from the Peanuts comic

You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

Alexis de Torqueville

Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

My experience with the ACLU has always been positive. They have been very supportive of religious orgs and their rights.

I'm surprised to hear anyone say that, it seems to me that the opposite is true. A friend of mine did a mini–documentary on this topic, back in 2005.

“Enemy-occupied territory---that is what this world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us to take part in a great campaign of sabotage.”

Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.